Why Iowans want range voting in their caucuses

Congratulations! You are a citizen of the state of Iowa!
Undoubtably you are asking "why do those peculiar
politicians show up every 4 years and start riding around on hogs?"
No wait, you already know that.

Seriously, Iowans have an extraordinary amount of power over the US presidential
selection process, and that power should be applied wisely.
In 2004, Iowans selected underdog Democrat John Kerry as their first choice
with John Edwards second.
And sure enough, Kerry went on to become the nationwide Democratic candidate
and eventually chose Edwards to be his running mate.
But in retrospect, many Iowan Democrats believe that choosing Kerry was a mistake,
and wish they could have un-chosen him.
Kerry lost the election to G.W.Bush and was unable to effectively attack Bush's
main weaknesses
(the Iraq war, the massive budget deficit caused by irresponsible fiscal policy)
because Kerry himself (and his running mate Edwards)
had voted the same way as Bush on those things.
Kerry also ended up looking kind of stupid when he secretly tried
to get republican John McCain to be
his running mate, but was publically refused, then denied he'd really asked – then
did the same thing with general Wesley Clark.
Also the
so-called "wimp factor contrast" did not pan out:
Kerry, the "brave Vietnam war veteran" and later anti-war protestor, was supposed
to be arrayed in all his splendor versus Bush, the "chickenhawk" Vietnam war
supporter who had dodged the draft by getting the speaker of the Texas House
of Representatives to get him into the "Champagne squadron" of
the Texas air national guard. But in fact, as matters turned out, the impressiveness
of this contrast largely went over like a lead balloon. Also, the stark contrast between
Kerry the "bright responsible student," at Yale, where he was a co-member of
the "skull and bones" secret society with Bush, the "irresponsible frat-boy C student,"
didn't pan out too well either, when it was shown later that Kerry's grades at Yale
were in fact even lower than Bush's!

Many Iowan voters claimed they had voted Kerry not because they thought he was the best
choice, but rather, because they thought "strategically" that
he'd have the best chance against Bush
in the later full election in the rest of the USA.

So quite plausibly Iowan democrats made the wrong choice in 2004,
and quite plausibly they'll make the wrong choice again in some future election.

We could also discuss the 2000 caucuses, when Iowa chose Bush (with Forbes and
Keyes in 2nd and 3rd places), who sure enough
went on to win USA-wide. Right choice? Or, in retrospect,
might the fiscal-responsibility-emphasizing
war veteran John McCain have made a better president? McCain actually had higher poll numbers
USA-wide than either Bush or Gore, so, democratically speaking, "should" have been
elected president and for sure would have had better election chances,
unlike Bush who lost the (popular vote) election but won thanks to the 9 votes that mattered.
(Neither Forbes nor Keyes ever held an elected office –
suggesting ranking them ahead of McCain was not really sensible.)
But thanks to the Republican primaries, McCain was gone.
Analysis of McCain performance in Iowa 2000 caucuses.

But is it really "Iowans" making the wrong choices, or is it the direct
or indirect effects of
"the poor plurality voting system
used by Iowans"?

Which brings us to our point.
If Iowa is going to lead the USA when it comes to the primaries, why not have Iowa also
lead the USA – and worldwide democracy generally – by adopting range voting
in these caucuses? We suggest single digit range voting for
maximum simplicity.

That way, you could give a score on an 0-9 scale for each of
Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich, Sharpton, etc
and thus express your opinion about all of them, not just one.
(At present, your opinions about all the others get dumped into the Des Moines River.)
You wouldn't have to worry so much about "strategy" ("even though I favor
Kucinich, I cannot afford to vote for him because that might tip it away from Dean and
toward Edwards" – "even though I favor McCain, I cannot afford to waste my vote on him
because he did not campaign in Iowa and hence has no chance")
and could instead just be honest. ("Hey! With range voting I can give a full
9 to Kucinich, and that isn't going to hurt Dean in the slightest!" – "I can
give McCain a full 9 and I'm not in any way wasting my vote because I can still give Bush,
Forbes, etc any score I want!")

With range voting you get to give more information,
and more-honest information less-distorted by
strategic worries, and it makes sense that is
probably going to result in a better choice for (1) Iowa,
(2) the major parties, and (3) the country as a whole.

In fact it seems plain this is going to lead to better results for Iowa,
the Democrats, the Republicans, and the USA generally.
A similar
method of scoring is used in the Olympics to judge figure skaters, gymnasts,
etc. (Remember all those little cards on TV that say "8.7"?)
As a mental exercise, just
suppose instead that every judge at the Olympics were just allowed to name
a single figure skater. Period. We don't want your numbers from 0 to 10,
we don't want your opinions on any of the other figure skaters, we just want one name.
OK, the Olympic judges may not do a perfect job with their scorecards, but
if they had to use the "name one skater, no numbers" method of judging,
you can bet your bottom dollar against a politician's promise that the judging would
be one heck of a lot lamer.

If the pathetically bad plurality voting system wasn't
acceptable for those muscle kings and queens at the Olympics – because they
couldn't afford to look that bad on TV –
you can sure as shooting believe it shouldn't be good enough
for Iowans choosing the president of the country.

In case you have trouble believing that, say, Dean might have won Iowa with range voting despite
his third-place finish with Plurality voting (Kerry=38%, Edwards=32%, Dean=18%), check the
French study.
It makes it clear that strategic-voting, vote-splitting,
and candidate-cloning distortionary effects can indeed alter the results of these sorts
of elections by amounts fully this tremendous! It therefore is entirely possible
that, e.g. Dean or McCain "really" should have won Iowa, and would have with range voting.
(Mind you, we are not claiming this would really have happened. We are merely pointing
out it is not at all implausible.)

Adopt range voting and let the rest of the USA know that, in Iowa, you know
what you are doing when it comes to democracy. Lead the planet in democracy
in a style a little more classy than just voting earlier – also vote better.
Set a historic example for the entire world.